Invisible Indonesia thrusts into the world

Invisible Indonesia thrusts into the world

By Claudia Kalb

The following is the second of two articles based on a report
about a conference on Indonesia held in New York from March 13 to
March 15.

NEW YORK (JP): In reference to the tension between developing
and industrialized countries, Don Emerson, professor at the
University of Wisconsin in Madison, asked a panel of speakers if
the West was witnessing the "Asianization of Asia" economically
and politically.

He cited the failure of U.S. trade talks with Japan and State
Secretary Warren Christopher's failed trip to Beijing as the
basis for his line of questioning.

Emerson's question came on the heels of an article published
in The Wall Street Journal on April 13, citing Asian impatience
with the West. "A new Asia is ascendant: increasingly prosperous,
more self-confident and often resentful of what it perceives as a
preachy patronizing West," the Journal reported.

Dewi Fortuna Anwar, a researcher at the Indonesian Institute
of Sciences disagreed, saying that Indonesia's attitude toward
the United States had become more moderate since the end of the
Cold War.

"We're not embarrassed to say that the United States does
serve some purpose," Anwar said. "Now, the discourse between Asia
and the West is on a more equal footing. There's less and less
defensiveness on the part of Asia and less and less arrogance on
the part of the West."

But despite Anwar's comments, the touchy issue of democracy
provoked Indonesian speakers in particular to ask for a more
thorough appreciation of what Emil Salim of the Center of Policy
and Implementation Studies, called the "disunited factors" that
exist in Indonesia.

Citing the breakup of the Soviet and Yugoslavia, Salim warned
that Indonesia's move toward a more open democracy had to be
tempered by the delicate balance of ethnic and religious
differences. "Everybody speaks about democracy," said Salim, "but
developing countries have no rights whatsoever in determining
where the world should go.

"Let the country move forward at a speed it can afford," he
said. "Don't force change. Let change be decided by Indonesia.
Don't impose change. Don't tell us what to do. Be a friend."

Marianne Haug of the World Bank noted the country's two
"generic characteristics", continuity and flexibility, as key
factors in its success over the past 25 years -- sticking with
macroeconomic stability and at the same time adjusting to changes
in the economic structure of the outside world.

Haug then warned Indonesia that there was no time to waste in
maintaining its competitive position within the region and the
world.

"Countries that fail to keep pace are left behind," Haug said.

She noted that whereas in the past countries had months, if
not years to catch up to global economic developments, the
process is much more accelerated today. "Reacting too slowly is
often sufficient to divert resources and attention elsewhere."
She cited Vietnam, China and, increasingly Latin America, as
strong competitors for Indonesia.

Hadi Soesastro, executive director at the Center for Strategic
and International Studies, responded to Haug's concern by noting
that because of Indonesia's successful economic reform, greater
support for deregulation exists. "Liberalization doesn't sound
like a dirty word any more in Indonesia," Soesastro said.

But because of the monopolization of some industries, he
added, "It's going too slow."

In discussing Indonesia's entry into the global marketplace,
the U.S. Assistant Trade Representative for Asia and the Pacific,
Robert C. Cassidy, said the United States should attempt to
harmonize disparate trade standards, facilitate financing for
infrastructure development and work toward defining the issue of
workers rights in terms of both international norms and the
challenges of a developing country.

"It's a challenge for both Indonesia and the United States,"
Cassidy said. In response to an Indonesian student's question,
"How enthusiastic is the United States toward Indonesia?" Cassidy
said, "The fundamental view of the United States is that we are
not well served if Indonesia's economy is not growing."

But Imam Taufik of the Indonesian Chamber of Commerce and
Industry warned that Indonesia suffers from an image problem in
the United States.

"Indonesia is still considered a remote market with risk,"
Taufik said. Before trade numbers can go up "there must be an
effort to enhance Indonesia's image."

Discussions on Indonesian politics covered the succession of
power after President Soeharto, the role of the Armed Forces and
the role of Islam in Indonesia's political future, as well as
regional issues, such as Indonesia's role in ASEAN.

William Liddle, professor at Ohio State University, defined
Indonesia's political system as a military authoritarian regime,
in which the rule of the day is "arbitrary use of coercion" and
"arbitrary decision-making."

But since 1987, Liddle said, the New order has been in a "new
phase" characterized by President Soeharto's reaching out to
constituencies such as ICMI and the indigenous middle class,
while at the same time re-establishing control over ABRI.

Liddle also voiced what seemed to be a lone view of Soeharto's
term in office. "On the basis of his actions, Soeharto intends to
stay. He's not likely to step down in 1998."

Pointing to a burgeoning of non-governmental organizations
(NGOs) -- about 10,000 since 1985 -- Marzuki Darusman of the
Indonesian National Committee for Human Rights, said the
"authoritarian prone government of Indonesia" was being forced to
adjust to new players in the political arena.

In so doing, Darusman said, Indonesia was laying the
groundwork for democracy. "There is more confidence that we are
taking the future into our own hands. With the growth of NGOs and
increased assertiveness of the society, Indonesia will have a
much more dynamic society and real democracy can here be
launched."

Don Emmerson of the University of Wisconsin accepted
Darusman's positive prescription for democracy, but he cautioned
that the regime in power could simply put on a "facade of real
pluralism."

Emerson said that at worst increased activism could lead to
"instability, rising unrest and clamping down." Emerson pointed
to what he called "significant signs of ferment with political
implications: "labor unrest, student unrest, a more vocal
legislature, more autonomous leadership of parties and other
organizations and an increase in press criticism.

Within the political discussion, speakers also raised the
issue of what Professor Liddle called the "growing Islamic
consciousness" in Indonesia. That consciousness, said Moslem
Abdurrahman of the University of Illinois has become apparent in
the rise of what he called the Moslem Middle Class.

"With an increase in material well being there is an increase
in expectations of quality of life." As a result, Abdurrahman
said, the Moslem Middle Class has turned to religious symbols and
to prayer to combat an "imbalance between values and material
social change."

But whereas rituals and pilgrimages are flourishing, said
Abdurrahman, there has been a "depoliticization of Islam."

Mark Woodward of Arizona State University said Moslems were
beginning to call for an end to the idea of the Islamic state
and in recent years had redefined the life of the Islamic
community as an "ethical and moral struggle rather than
political."

Woodward said Islam in Indonesia had also sought to include
rather than exclude, and that tolerance would provide the basis
for "healing the divisions that marked Indonesian society in the
first 20 years of its history."

But Woodward said Islam cannot be overlooked. "It is
impossible to formulate Indonesia's future without the role of
Islam. Modernity in Indonesia must be considered as more than
infrastructure and microchips. Stability requires theological, as
well as political, consensus."

When the speakers were asked to assess Indonesia's political
future post-Soeharto in the context of the Armed Forces and
Islam, William Liddle seemed to answer for everyone when he said,
"It's very difficult to predict."